But, but think about the clump of cells!!
I don’t think anyone that’s being honest thought anything different was going to happen.
But, but think about the clump of cells!!
I am going to probably regret this, but this kind of reductionist summary of the very real conflict of priorities does not help the situation. First let’s get my conclusion out of the way, I’m pro-choice. I am also an atheist-- I will immediately disregard any argument that invokes a magic spirit living inside a meat suit. However, even with “MaGiC” off the board, there is some argument to be made about doing harm to future people (and a zygote is a future person) and deserves a real discussion.
We already do things that restrict what people can do based on harm it might do in the future-- to people that aren’t even born yet. If being unborn really counted for nothing, we wouldn’t have any laws that restricted action based on long-term effect. (For example: laws to prevent climate change, to prevent cluster bombing, etc) So clearly, whether or not a person has been born yet doesn’t immediately disqualify them from protection under the law.
The abortion debate is one of those uncommon instances where two conflicting rights meet. The proverbial “your right to swing your arm stops at my nose” situation. We have done this every time there is such a conflict. Your right to life ends when you attempt to end the life of someone else (self defense), for example. We, as a society, get to must decide whose rights are more important in the abortion scenario, but at no point are we saying that both parties don’t have rights. One just necessarily must supersede the other.
I personally believe that there is far more risk with giving the government the power to force a pregnant person to undergo a risky medical procedure against their will than in ending the life of a person who has not been born yet. There are some powers I think we would be foolish to grant the government, and “forced birth” is definitely one of them. However, it’s important to keep in mind that this decision isn’t a law of nature-- no more than “killing in self defense is allowed” is a law of nature; these are societal judgments. It’s plausible that a society could make a different judgement; one where even killing someone in self-defense was viewed as a criminal act. In fact, you probably believe this to a degree when it comes to “stand your ground” laws, as implementing in places like Florida or Texas.
It’s important to keep in mind that there is no objectively right or wrong answer; if there were, it wouldn’t be a conflict point. It necessitates a dialog to convince people to agree with you, and dismissing the argument as foolish doesn’t do that, which means it will remain an “undecided” conflict point for longer than it needs to.
Sorry about the unsolicited rant. Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk?
There is certainly a right answer, my body, my choice. Get out of here trying to reason with the pro life side. There is no discussion. There is no compromise, there is no trying to understand those fools. My body, my choice no more discussion. That’s all the discussion we need
If you think you can force your subjective will on billions of people by plugging your ears and shouting “I’m right” you’re going to be very disappointed by life.
I agree with the result of your conclusion but I disagree with your central premise. We do have laws to protect rights in the future. Those laws, though, don’t protect individual rights, they protect the rights of the society as a whole.
I the case of the fetus, it is arguable as to when the fetus gains rights of its own, but I don’t think that a newly fertilized egg immediately gains rights. Something like the morning after pill, abortion at 6 weeks, or even abortion at 12 or 20 weeks doesn’t constitute “murder in self defense” in my mind. I think there is a line to be drawn somewhere before that even becomes a consideration.
Once you do cross that line, though, we do get to your argument and your logic holds I think.
my body, my choice is all the logic we need. Don’t try to argue or draw debates. It will only divide it will only give them some sort of sense that their argument holds water. There is nothing but ‘my body, my choice.’
Your stance is not incompatible with mine; my meta stance is solely that there is a discussion to have. As opposed to the person in this thread pretending like it’s an objective fact instead of a societal judgement.
I do not specifically carve out an exception for late term abortion because no one is actually waiting 6 months before deciding whether to carry to term. The people getting late term abortions are doing it because they must due to medical reasons.
There’s no real conflict of rights, unless you believe that people should be forced by the government to be live organ donors. That “future person” has no more rights to a woman’s uterus than I do as an adult to my mother’s blood & organs if I get into a car accident.
Notably, this is my exact conclusion-- but my point isn’t that a pregnant person should not be allowed to have a choice-- only that the argument could be logically made that the rights of the zygote are more important. A parent has to feed and care for their kids, even if they want to abandon them to go spend a week in vegas. We make judgement on whose rights matter more all the time, and abortion/choice is no different.
My point was that it doesn’t help anyone to dismiss that there is a judgement to be made. You and I have both obviously made judgments that the pregnant person’s right to bodily autonomy is of greater importance, but that doesn’t mean that this is objectively true, or that the zygote doesn’t have rights or should be considered a person for legal purposes.
It’s not a Ted Talk, it’s a forced birth argument churlishly hiding under a false cloak of “pro-choice atheist.”
It doesn’t matter whether you believe in God or not, or in souls, there’s no actual valid argument for the “rights” of a zygote.
And you’re incredibly dismissive of the rights of the person hosting that zygote and having it feed off their life-force.
At least 1 in 4 of pregnancies abort all on their own. Until recently we didn’t attack people when they failed to prevent that. But now hospitals are telling women they have to wait until they’re dying of sepsis to end a pregnancy with a fetus that’s dying all on its own. That’s where your argument leads and we’re seeing it in real deaths.
You’re trying to get the camel’s nose under the tent of women’s bodily autonomy, and I’m calling you out on it.
Same Old Bullshit. Same Old Misogyny.
I haven’t dismissed anything, except religious arguments to remove choice. I’m saying that “it’s just a bunch of cells” or “my body, my choice” are not sound arguments. A clump of cells can have rights. Rights are a human invention, not a natural thing that exists independent of humans; we can literally give anything we want legal rights, including a clump of cells. So, you can’t simply dismiss the entire concept of a zygote having rights; that is something you need to defend. The zygote certainly has rights if someone attacked a pregnant person and caused a miscarriage; they could be charged with murder. No?
However, as I go on to say, I think it’s entirely possible to grant a zygote rights, while also acknowledging that a pregnant person’s right to bodily autonomy supersedes those rights. Similar to how someone has a right to life until they try to kill someone else, in which case, we say the rights of the attacked take precedence over the rights of the attacker. Hopefully no one believes the attacker no longer has rights. Does that make sense?
I respectfully disagree
this kind of reductionist summary of the very real conflict of priorities does not help the situation.
scientifically speaking, it’s 100% accurate. Just because imaginary sky daddy tells some people that it’s already a thinking, breathing, living person doesn’t matter.
If being unborn really counted for nothing, we wouldn’t have any laws that restricted action based on long-term effect. (For example: laws to prevent climate change, to prevent cluster bombing, etc)
We don’t really though. There are no real punishments for any of those actions, or anything to actually stop people from doing them. Yes, we do have laws saying you can go to jail if you do drugs while pregnant, BUT that’s because there is an INTENTION to carry to term, and have an actual human happen, that will be great affected by those drinking/drug uses during pregnancy. If you are so early on that you can/are aborting, SCIENTIFICALLY it’s a clump of cells, with no chance of being a human at that time.
The abortion debate is one of those uncommon instances where two conflicting rights meet.
yeah… not really. If I’m forced to carry the parasite, I have the only say in what happens to it. I’m a living breathing already existing human being. The cells are not, and they cannot live outside of my body, so please take them out, and let them do their thing. Please let’s see what happens.
However, it’s important to keep in mind that this decision isn’t a law of nature-- no more than “killing in self defense is allowed” is a law of nature; these are societal judgments.
nature is pretty indiscriminate in what it kills, but humans have added their own beliefs, which vary wildly from location to location. Regardless, the government and especially religion should have zero say. Abortion is a medical procedure, whether you, imaginary sky daddy, or some religious zealot thinks otherwise, and should be treated as such.
In fact, you probably believe this to a degree when it comes to “stand your ground” laws, as implementing in places like Florida or Texas.
Not related, so not really relevant to this topic, but generally, as far as I can tell, those laws are simply and excuse to kill for the sake of killing, and because the person already WANTED to.
It’s important to keep in mind that there is no objectively right or wrong answer; if there were, it wouldn’t be a conflict point.
Except scientifically, and objectively, there is a right answer. Certain people just don’t like it, but it doesn’t change the reality of it. That’s like saying I don’t like religion so no one can practice it. Doesn’t work, does it?
It necessitates a dialog to convince people to agree with you, and dismissing the argument as foolish doesn’t do that, which means it will remain an “undecided” conflict point for longer than it needs to.
I’m pretty sure, based on historical data, and observation, we all know that a respectful discourse isn’t going to happen, and if it did, it wouldn’t sway the party in the wrong. Also, at this point, I do not believe there are any “undecided” people left. Either you follow reality and science, or imaginary sky daddy. Those seem to be the only two options left in US society. Other countries see the value, and necessity, and treat abortion as such, but we aren’t one of those countries.
I really appreciate the effort you took to respond. You’ll shortly read that I disagree, but I appreciate it just the same.
scientifically speaking, it’s 100% accurate.
Scientifically speaking, we’re all just clumps of cells, are we not? The argument is not sound.
There are no real punishments for any of those actions
I don’t see how this matters. You do agree that we should concern ourselves with the well being of the people that haven’t been born yet, right? We should not perform actions today that can harm people in the future? If yes, then whether or not someone has been born is irrelevant to whether or not they deserve protection as a person under the law, or even morally speaking, if you care for moral arguments.
yeah… not really. If I’m forced to carry the parasite,
It’s not a parasite anymore than when anti-choicers call it a baby. It’s a… growth, but aren’t we all? haha This isn’t Hogwarts. You’re not going to convince anyone that you are correct by using a magic phrase like “baby” or “parasite” or “clump of cells”. And my point is that this is something you need to convince people of. So you should want to take actions are effective at that goal.
they cannot live outside of my body, so please take them out, and let them do their thing
This has always been an interesting thought experiment for me. Imagining a future time where a zygote could be removed from a pregnant person’s body without killing the zygote, the abortion debate would cease to exist-- because there is no longer a conflict between two people’s rights.
the government and especially religion should have zero say. Abortion is a medical procedure, whether you, imaginary sky daddy, or some religious zealot thinks otherwise, and should be treated as such.
Well, I agree with this. That’s my conclusion as well. That’s not a power the government should have over people.
those laws are simply and excuse to kill for the sake of killing, and because the person already WANTED to
Thus my point: even in the realm of “it’s okay to end someone’s life if you’re acting in self defense” is not an objective stance. You’ve rightly added in context and nuance. Why should abortion be different? Why shouldn’t abortion also be a debate, as opposed to claiming it’s an objective truth?
Except scientifically, and objectively, there is a right answer. Certain people just don’t like it, but it doesn’t change the reality of it. That’s like saying I don’t like religion so no one can practice it. Doesn’t work, does it?
We’ve already established that your “scientifically” aspect is flawed, but keep in mind that we are discussing a human social construct (the law). We have granted abstract objects (corporations) some rights of personhood-- there is nothing to say we couldn’t provide rights to a “clump of cells”. The question then becomes if we should, which just brings up back to the original problem. In fact, I’d say that it makes things worse to argue from this point. If you say that a “clump of cells” is not a person, then what happens if someone assaults a pregnant person which results in loss of the pregnancy? If you’ve decided that there are no rights, then I feel like the law becomes less just for edge cases. Whereas if you instead concede that there are rights, but when they come in conflict with the rights of the pregnant person, the “clump of cells” rights are the ones that become restricted and the law still makes sense otherwise.
Also, at this point, I do not believe there are any “undecided” people left.
This is provably untrue. Just because someone has made a decision doesn’t mean they can’t be convinced otherwise. After Roe was struck down, polling in favor of maintaining abortion rights went up. Polling wouldn’t change if no one could be swayed.
Again, I really appreciate the thought and effort you put into your reply. And do keep in mind that you and I are both pro-choice (and apparently atheist). My point is directly mostly towards how best to argue our case to people who disagree.
Edit: I don’t know what happened but a significant part of my comment seems… missing.
Edit2: oh, formatting weirdness. Fixed.
Don’t think about it as doing harm to a future person. Think about it as doing harm to a future dead corpse. Both have the exact same logical reasoning.
So having an abortion is just getting them to the corpse stage faster. And really what’s the harm in that? Certainly it’s much less harm than forcing someone to do something with their body that they don’t want to.
I just hate the “a zygote is a future person” argument, because by that logic my jizz is a future person and every time I jizz that doesn’t result in a pregnancy has the same weight an abortion carry’s. I have yet to hear a convincing argument for why we stop the abortion claim at when the jizz enters the uterus. I think there’s something to be said at making it illegal after a certain trimester, but I don’t know where I’d even put that line.
Do you not understand how the process works? A zygote is a future person. Sperm is only half the equation.
I think it prudent to examine the risks associated with being born to a person who would have chosen abortion had it been safe, free, and legal. The kids one chose to have deserve to grow up surrounded by wanted and cared for peers as much as the kids one would not choose to have deserve to be born into a loving and prepared family.
No one chooses to be born. It’s literally impossible to determine whether an unborn human would prefer to be born without knowing anything about the existence that awaits them. That is why we put the focus on the person who is already in this world, and their choice about their body.
Unfortunately, this is the fundamental “weakness” of the pro choice side of the argument: it’s nuanced. And apparently ain’t nobody got time for nuance. The anti-choice argument is quick and easy and requires no time to process, discuss, or work through. “Abortion == baby murder == bad.”
It’s not a surprise that the only voices you hear from the religious circles, at least the Christian ones, are Catholics and Evangelicals. Those groups often tend to deal with nuance by ignoring it altogether. Mainline Protestants, not so much. We – and I’m saying this as a Mainline Protestant – live and breathe nuance. Sometimes to the point where we seem to be drowning in it. There isn’t an army of Presbyterians, Lutherans, or Episcopalians taking to the streets in support of abortion rights because… Well, it’s complicated.
Obviously I can’t speak for everyone in those circles but the fact is that probably most Christians, even “liberal” (and I dislike that term for it’s inaccuracy) ones don’t love abortion. From my perspective it’s perceived as a medical procedure that is sometimes necessary even if it has potential for abuse. I would expect a lot of Mainline Protestants are pro-choice but the thoughts on abortion are probably so diverse and nuanced that it’s hard to distill down to a coherent message.
Thank you for speaking your truth. We need more of this and less careless disregard for the beliefs of others. Understanding is the only way to grow as a species. Calling a life a clump of cells may be true in some senses but not in all. If you think we’re all just clumps of cells that’s fine, but that’s not what the pro lifers see. Disregarding that fact only weakens your position and strengthens your “opposition’s”.
